click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
as the internet. in less than a decade, the pentagon's warning that it might be possible for a computer hacker to disable critical infrastructure in a major city and disrupt essential services has actually happened. other online attacks have seen millions of dollars stolen from banks and defense systems infiltrated. it's why, as we first reported in november of 2009, some people are already saying that the next big war is less likely to begin with a bang than a blackout. >> can you imagine your life without electric power? >> until february 2009, retired admiral mike mcconnell was the nation's top spy. as chief of national intelligence, he oversaw the central intelligence agency, the defense intelligence agency and the national security agency. few people know as much about cyber warfare, and our dependency on the power grid, and the computer networks that deliver our oil and gas, pump and purify our water, keep track of our money, and operate our transportation systems. >> if i were an attacker and i wanted to do strategic damage to the united states, i would either take the cold of winter or
care benefit system in the pentagon needs to be overhauled and that these are where major savings are and that's where we should aim for, that the pentagon cannot be immune from this exercise. >> i wouldn't disagree at all. i think you can debate what kind of military defense strategy you wish, what kind of forces you plan on having, their technology, their training levels, all that should be on the table. but you've got to do it in a rational way. you've got to act like it's a business. the whole notion of cutting billions of dollars out of the defense budget, i just read one of the pundits announcing you can cut the defense budget by 2/3 and it wouldn't affect national security. and that all of this is political theater. it's anything but political theater. you know, dr. ash carter, the deputy's a very rational, bright fellow. very experienced. the chiefs of the services just testified under oath. they said this is going to be a big problem. and i think it is. >> and i agree with the general. because again, as i said, i'm not saying not to do cuts but let's do it smart. let's no
the pentagon to allocate the cuts in their best judgment rather than forcing certain cuts on them. that would be one helpful thing, but i think the bargaining power almost requires that we allow it to happen before -- before anybody is going to get serious about their negotiation. i agree. it's a terrible idea, but it's maybe a bad idea whose time has come. >> laura you say it's not next to happen. >> right. >> you say there's no debt crisis. how would you describe the 16 trillion debt. >> so what i would say, look, there were estimates out there at the beginning of the year we needed about $4 trillion to stabilize the debt-to-gdp ratio. we're about 60% of the way there. we do need additional revenue increases or spending cuts over the next decade, but let me emphasize. over the next decade. not at a moment in time when the economy has 7.9% unemployment and is operating under its capacity to the tune of maybe six percentage points below capacity. this is a terrible time to do what needs to be done, and it's also a terrible way to do it because it's like telling a business you have to cut ever
of peaked and it's showing some sign of a reversal. >> the pentagon is cutting the usair craft carrier fleet in the persian gulf to demonstrate the effect looming defense cuts could have on the military. it will have to trim flying hours and lockheed's fighter jets. billions of dollars in automatic cuts known as the sequester are set to take effect march 1st if congress doesn't delay or cancel them. outgoing secretary of defense leon panetta called lawmakers irresponsible. >> it is difficult to believe, frankly, that congress would simply stand aside, stand aside, fail to make the decisions necessary to resolve this crisis and allow the defense, economy and quality of life of america to be irreparably damaged. >> thou, some health and senate republics have offered a plan to cut the federal workforce and use those savings too void the full 85 billion sequester. a similar plan failed to gain any traction last year. however, will this time be different? mark parkinson, former governor of kansas, ceo, and a real pleasure to have you with us. >> great to be here this morning. thank you. >> we wou
to see you. i wanted to put this up. this is what's on the cover of "usa today." pentagon warns of huge cuts. when you think about what's going on in washington, right now, and you think about the sequester that may or may not happen, and you think about your history in washington, do you think that we will have the sequester? >> andrew, i don't know. i think it's a very complicated situation. i think we had a great opportunity and i actually thought there was some reasonable chance it might happen, which was to have a grand bargain that could have addressed what is really unsustainable and deeply dangerous long-term fiscal situation and i think if we had done that, not only would be useful for the long run but i think could have generated confidence in the shorter run and promote jobs now. now instead of that we have a happen has 5rd process. a sequester we're facing. it's a terrible piece of legislation. it arbitrarily cuts defense and nondefense without thoughtfully doing so. instead of being phased in so we'd have more room for recovery, it hits abruptly. and it's far, far from clea
's not going to be any opportunity to cut pentagon spending in any serious way if you don't go over the cliff. so there is some stuff in there that i as a democrat don't like. but i think everybody's going to put something in the pot in order to balance the deficit. we did a lousy job in january on the tax side and i hope that -- i think it's better to go over the cliff than do a lousy job -- >> how many people do you know on your side of the field who actually agree with you? >> very few. look they're politicians. they want to spend as much money as they possibly can and they don't want to pay for it. >> who agrees with you? >> oh, i don't know. i bet -- oh, god, joe agrees with me. >> you forgot. the other thing, howard, and i'm just alluding to it, there will be no return to the bush era tax rates on anyone under $400,000? >> right. >> okay. so take that amount of money, whatever that is per year. how much do you need -- how many loopholes do you need to close? what is the marginal rate have to be on people above 400 to replace that potential revenue? it's 100%, isn't it? >> but i don't --
taking the civilian workers when our country is still at war at the pentagon and putting them on four days a week work is still waste. let those who think they've identified waste and no doubt there are efficiencies that can be found put their proposals forward and let those proposals be weighed in the context of a balanced approach. the question isn't whether we should leave any category immune. the question is whether we should have a balanced approach. and to assume, before anyone has laid out any kind of vision of how that $85 billion a year could be cut, that it must be possible and that everything else has to be ruled out seems to me to be a extraordinarily irresponsible approach. of course there are instances of waste in the federal government. there are also instances of huge unmet needs of diseases where we could find cures that save tens of thousands of people's lives in the next several years. but we're cutting the budget instead and denying ourselves the chances to find those cures. of infrastructure investments where we're risking more bridges collapsing and all we're doi
, you don't care. >> i guess, but i don't. i don't care. >>> the pentagon chief for the f-35 warplane is slamming his partner lockheed martin. he's accusing them of trying to squeeze every nickel out of the u.s. government faults them for seeing the long-term benefits of the project. >>> and tesla ceo eland musk vowing to pay back an energy deficit loan in half the time required by the government. the company receives a doe loan in 2010 and made the first payment of nearly $13 million in december. >> by the way, did you see yesterday -- remember we had -- there was a big debate about the test drive of the tesla in "the new york times." >> yeah. uh-huh. >> and phil lebeau -- >> went well. then edmonds did one yesterday. >> how did that go? >> not so well. the whole interior screen that sort of is the hub of the whole car, it stopped working. >> i don't understand this debate anyway. if you want to go a long trip like that, wouldn't you take a different car? rent a car or -- >> yeah. phil made the point. this is what you do -- >> andrew made the point, too. >> if you feel green and you
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)